|
|
Napa County Resource Conservation District |
|
| back |  RCD home |
|
|
Napa County Resource Conservation District |
|
| back | RCD home |
Napa County's "Hillside Ordinance"
and the
Resource Conservation District
Background:
Throughout the 1980's many Napa County residents became increasingly concerned about soil erosion and its water quality impacts. Highly visible hillside vineyards and a few dramatic sedimentation events finally focused enough public attention on the problem to inspire the Board of Supervisors to enact legislation controlling hillside developments. Since the Hillside Ordinance (also known as the Conservation Regulations, or Ordinance 991) became law in September of 1991, most new developments proposed for sites with ground slopes of 5% or greater are permitted only after County approval of Erosion Control Plans submitted by the applicant. The Napa County Conservation, Development and Planning Department is the regulatory agency charged with administration of the Ordinance. Rather than relying on its own staff to conduct Plan reviews and site inspections, CDPD has entered into contractual agreements with two agencies who review the Plans and sites.
- Structural (non-agricultural) Erosion Control Plans are required for developments requiring building permits on sites of 15% slope or greater. These Plans are reviewed by LandWatch Incorporated, a private firm whose local representatative is Doug Nix. Plans and installations must be approved by the consultant prior to being "finalled" by the Building Inspection Division. Proposals for structures on slopes of 5-15% slopes need not include a formal Erosion Control Plan, but building plans must include specified "standard measures" for erosion and sedimentation control. The Building Inspection Division is responsible for inspection of these measures.
- Erosion Control Plans are also required for all agricultural developments which involve a proposed change of land use, or replant, on sites of 5% slope or greater. These developments are of course dominated by vineyards, but may also include such activities as orchards, Christmas tree farms, forage or row-crop farms, golf courses, or general land clearings. The Napa County Resource Conservation District (RCD) reviews all new developments and some replants (see below), passing on its findings of technical adequacy to Napa County CDPD, which makes the actual approval.
ConsRegs Evolution
In April of 1994, the Board of Supervisors passed an amendment to the Ordinance. This amendment included the following changes to procedures for agricultural developments :
- Erosion Control Plans for vineyard replants may now be submitted without the requirement for technical review by RCD. These Plans must be developed by one of a specifically-authorized list of qualified, insured and bonded consultants, who are also required to supervise installation of the measures called for in the Plan. The County's control over this "Track 2" or "privatized" process is limited to a certification of Plan "completeness", plus of course the authority to determine which consultants are to be included on the list.
- Another option for vineyard owners who want to replant existing vineyards on relatively simple or non-erosive sites is to file a Vineyard Replant Program. This option was created to allow owners of such vineyards to plan their replants (and comply with the Ordinance) without hiring expensive, unnecessary professional help. The Replant Program differs from a full Erosion Control Plan in that it permits non-professional preparation and relaxes base map requirements. Especially on smaller vineyards, preparation of the base map--frequently a two-foot interval contour map for a full Erosion Control Plan--is the most expensive component of the Plan. This change represents a significant opportunity for small growers to reduce the per-acre cost of ConsRegs compliance.
- The Ordinance provides for stream setbacks and slope limitations for new developments. Vineyard replants are exempt from these restrictions under certain conditions, which in the original Ordinance included restrictions against any grading or other modification of the "original footprint" of the existing vineyard. The trouble with those regulatory conditions was that they were providing incentives to replant problem vineyards without correcting poor layouts and destructive, uncontrolled runoff, in order to retain the exemptions and not lose plantable acreage. Also, poor drafting of this Section of the original Ordinance misled a number of growers to think that their vineyard replants were exempt from the Ordinance itself, rather than from the setback and slope limitation requirements. The 1994 amendment clarified that language, and gave growers more flexibility to address specific layout and runoff control problems with minor grading in vineyard replants, without losing the exemptions and acreage that might have been in jeopardy under the original regulations.
- RCD staff may recommend Field Modifications to approved Erosion Control Plans. The extent of this authority has been the subject of some discussion since passage of the original Conservation Regulations. Current policy has evolved from these discussions between the District and County Planning staff, and requires that actual approval of modifications be made by CDPD staff. In general, minor modifications to an approved Plan which do not increase the amount of erosion predicted from a project, and do not alter the erosion control strategy of the approved Plan may be approved as field modifications. Any proposed changes to an approved Plan which either increase its erosion potential, or alter the strategy by which erosion control is achieved, must be approved by way of a formal Plan Revision, requiring a separate submittal with an additional filing fee to the County, and a separate consideration by an RCD Review Committee. Given adequate mitigating measures, these major changes might be approved, but not as field modifications.
|
|
RCD home |
|
| back |